I'd prefer we scrap the UN altogether and form a coalition either losely based on NATO or an entirely new body made up of strictly and provably democratic states. Then we might be able to take unilateral action that could change the world for the better or at least make it a little freer.
If the UN fails to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights universally throughout its member-states then it has ultimately failed as an organisation and needs to be drastically reformed or disbanded.

And when China or Russia decides to oppose this organisation, what then? WW3?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Stir

I don't think anyone should have the power to veto anything. It's decidedly undemocratic.

There's no such thing as "much needed" intervention. Interventions are never needed.

All right, gentlemen, let's review. The year is 2017 - that's two-zero-one-seven, as in the 21st Century - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.

And when China or Russia decides to oppose this organisation, what then? WW3?

China is propped up by exports. I doubt they'd ever dare to declare war on their biggest customers. Russia's economy is also quite thoroughly interwoven with those of the more democratic world. It would also be in Putin and co.'s best interest not to alienate themselves completely from the rest of the world (if people aren't tired of him now, they sure as hell will be when the money runs out). That's one of the good things about having a global economy. While we're all trading goods and services, we're much less likely to be trading casualties.

Those guys might talk a big game, but all the Neo-Cold War rhetoric is just hot air. On both sides.

Which just means that the flaw lies with the top five powers, and not the UN, which has been instrumental in avoiding really large-scale conflicts since it's founding. On the subject of the veto power, it is clear that the current system does not work. Either all countries should have it (in which case nothing would ever get done, and the UN would become as useless as some uneducated people imagines it is today) or no-one should have it...in which case the US and Russia might withdraw from it. But seeing as the US at least show very little intrest in actually conforming to international agreements and UN resolutions, that might not be a too huge loss.

It's not like the US doesnt use their veto power to cower for their own ally.

C/P :

In the history of the Security Council, almost half the vetoes were cast by the Soviet Union, with the vast majority of those being before 1965.[11]
Since 1966, out of the total 155 vetoes cast, 133 were issued by one of the council's three NATO members: the US, the UK and France.[12]
From 1946 to 2008, vetoes were issued on 261 occasions. For that period, usage breaks down as follows:
United States has used the veto on 82 occasions between 1946 and 2007; and since 1972, it has used its veto power more than any other permanent member.[13]
Russia/the Soviet Union has used the veto on 124 occasions, more than any two others of the five permanent members of the Security Council combined.[14]

China is propped up by exports. I doubt they'd ever dare to declare war on their biggest customers. Russia's economy is also quite thoroughly interwoven with those of the more democratic world. It would also be in Putin and co.'s best interest not to alienate themselves completely from the rest of the world (if people aren't tired of him now, they sure as hell will be when the money runs out). That's one of the good things about having a global economy. While we're all trading goods and services, we're much less likely to be trading casualties.

Those guys might talk a big game, but all the Neo-Cold War rhetoric is just hot air. On both sides.

Such was the common consensus back in 1913. Exclusive alliances are a fairly sure road to war, because sooner or later you are going to cross some other country. If the western world forms an alliance, you can be sure that China and Russia will form alliances of their own.

Such was the common consensus back in 1913. Exclusive alliances are a fairly sure road to war, because sooner or later you are going to cross some other country. If the western world forms an alliance, you can be sure that China and Russia will form alliances of their own.

The UN does have its uses in a few areas such as the ICJ (although that does have its own issues) and its peacekeeping missions. As for the veto power itself that does need to be removed but it should be done over a period of time as what's the point in bringing issues up that require UN actions if all it takes is one member to cockblock the whole process.

Such was the common consensus back in 1913. Exclusive alliances are a fairly sure road to war, because sooner or later you are going to cross some other country. If the western world forms an alliance, you can be sure that China and Russia will form alliances of their own.

It's possible. But, again to fall back on the benefits of globalisation, the world is a lot "smaller" now than it was in 1913. It isn't as easy to rile up the population of a country with nationalistic and 'us and them' rhetoric. The internet has hammered home the fact that 'Average Joe's in one country are pretty much just the same as 'Average Joe's in another country and so people are less likely to be duped by the powers that be into thinking that an entire group of people is the enemy just because they possess a different passport from them.
It's been really helpful in current socio-political crises with victims in conflict countries being able to broadcast (often) in real-time what is being done to them to the rest of the world and I think it makes everybody a lot more internationally empathetic. I think it would be similarly helpful in preventing nation vs nation wars.

It's possible. But, again to fall back on the benefits of globalisation, the world is a lot "smaller" now than it was in 1913. It isn't as easy to rile up the population of a country with nationalistic and 'us and them' rhetoric. The internet has hammered home the fact that 'Average Joe's in one country are pretty much just the same as 'Average Joe's in another country and so people are less likely to be duped by the powers that be into thinking that an entire group of people is the enemy just because they possess a different passport from them.
It's been really helpful in current socio-political crises with victims in conflict countries being able to broadcast (often) in real-time what is being done to them to the rest of the world and I think it makes everybody a lot more internationally empathetic. I think it would be similarly helpful in preventing nation vs nation wars.

Mayhap, but you have to realise that if you form a military alliance and start interfering in other countries, the only logical choice for those other countries is to form a military alliance of their own. From there on it is just a question of time before something happens.

I disagree with your conclusion, yes people in Europe are less likely to get riled up by nationalism, but you just need to look outside of EU for nationalism. Also, real-time news foster apathy in the viewers. Wars would just take different form, in today's world conscript armies are already useless, so you might see wars without draft. Besides, if another world war starts, it will be short and brutal for everyone involved.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers

How will having an alliance or two in the world inevitably lead to war?

And nobody said that anyone would be acting aggressively?

I was talking with Bayn:

Originally Posted by Baiyn

I'd prefer we scrap the UN altogether and form a coalition either losely based on NATO or an entirely new body made up of strictly and provably democratic states. Then we might be able to take unilateral action that could change the world for the better or at least make it a little freer.
If the UN fails to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights universally throughout its member-states then it has ultimately failed as an organisation and needs to be drastically reformed or disbanded.

Defensive alliances are fine, but if you turn aggressive on the other hand...

Mayhap, but you have to realise that if you form a military alliance and start interfering in other countries, the only logical choice for those other countries is to form a military alliance of their own. From there on it is just a question of time before something happens.

I disagree with your conclusion, yes people in Europe are less likely to get riled up by nationalism, but you just need to look outside of EU for nationalism. Also, real-time news foster apathy in the viewers. Wars would just take different form, in today's world conscript armies are already useless, so you might see wars without draft. Besides, if another world war starts, it will be short and brutal for everyone involved.

- - - Updated - - -

I was talking with Bayn:

Defensive alliances are fine, but if you turn aggressive on the other hand...

On how dangerous alliances can be, check the start of WW1.

So was I. He didn't say we would attack China or Russia anywhere in that. I agree with him. We need to form an alliance (or even world government) made up only of democratic countries that respect civil liberties and human rights. And with mutually assured destruction, there wouldn't be another world war, especially not over something like this.

Only a few countries have the ability to veto stuff. If something isn't great, all you need is a majority vote saying 'no.' Vetoes are simply no good, because majority votes start to men jack-shit.

But as you say; this isn't a world where everyone's ideas are good and great. A veto grants one nation the ability to do stuff that isn't good or great.

Once again, working as intended. While there may be a lot of people in, say Africa, even all countries there combined do not even a have a part of power China, or USA have. If UN tried to go democratic, only some African and Asian countries would remain in it and such UN would be even more powerless than it is now.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers

So was I. He didn't say we would attack China or Russia anywhere in that. I agree with him. We need to form an alliance (or even world government) made up only of democratic countries that respect civil liberties and human rights. And with mutually assured destruction, there wouldn't be another world war, especially not over something like this.

You cite World War I, I cite the Cold War.

One of the main reasons why Cold war stayed cold was the veto power, which prevented each side from doing something really dangerous to the other side and even with veto, it was a close call several times.

Once again, working as intended. While there may be a lot of people in, say Africa, even all countries there combined do not even a have a part of power China, or USA have. If UN tried to go democratic, only some African and Asian countries would remain in it and such UN would be even more powerless than it is now.
.

Okay. Go invade another country of poor sods, then.
You do know that part of the reason for all of this warfare is the US' war-driven economy, right? War creates jobs. Manufacture, transportation, resource-management... War is a huge economy-booster, if you've got the production facilities for it.

Okay. Go invade another country of poor sods, then.
You do know that part of the reason for all of this warfare is the US' war-driven economy, right? War creates jobs. Manufacture, transportation, resource-management... War is a huge economy-booster, if you've got the production facilities for it.

Thanks, veto!

War-driven economy? Ah, I see, reason has no chance to succeed with you. If you think there would be less wars without the veto, you are just delusional.